Between Apple and Epic GamesThe long-running App Store revenue sharing disputeThe case has officially reached the U.S. Supreme Court. According to newly released court documents, Apple has submitted a [document/proposal] to the Supreme Court."Emergency Motion" Apple has filed an Emergency Application, requesting the Supreme Court to suspend upcoming legal proceedings in a lower court. These proceedings were intended to force Apple to disclose sensitive trade secrets and for the court to define a "reasonable percentage" for external payment channels. To avoid opening this Pandora's box, Apple decided to directly appeal to the highest judicial authority in the United States.
Commission or no commission? The whole story of the "contempt of court" controversy.
To understand why Apple is in such a hurry this time, we must review several key turning points in this lawsuit:
• 2021 Injunction:A U.S. district court initially ruled that Apple must allow developers to include external links or buttons within apps to direct users to payment methods outside the App Store. Apple subsequently amended the rules, but still charges a commission of up to 27% on these external transactions.
• 2025 "contempt of court" ruling:The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California was dissatisfied with Apple's "same old trick" approach, ruling that Apple's charging of high commissions violated the "spirit" of the injunction (although the original order did not explicitly prohibit commissions), and ordered Apple to comply."Contempt of court"During Apple's appeal, the court ordered it to maintain a 0% commission rate on external links.
• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict:Subsequently, the appeals court overturned the strict "zero commission" requirement and remanded the case to the district court, requiring the district court to clarify and determine a "reasonable" commission rate that Apple could charge.
Apple's four defenses: This concerns the domino effect of global regulation.
The case was originally scheduled to be remanded to the district court on May 5th for the "calculation of a reasonable rate" procedure, but Apple urgently applied to the Supreme Court on May 4th to suspend the order. Apple raised several key defenses in its application:
• The injunction never mentioned any fees:Apple argues that the original injunction in 2021 did not prohibit the collection of commissions or fees, therefore the district court's charge of "contempt of court" is completely unjustified.
• Irreversible commercial damage:If the trial continues under the biased lens of "contempt of court" in the local court, Apple will be forced to reveal highly sensitive core trade secrets and may even have to defend its core business model on erroneous grounds.
• Scope of application of over-expansion:Apple believes that this ban should not be overly broad and applied uniformly to all App Store developers in the United States (and not just Epic Games).
• Global regulators are watching:Apple acknowledged that regulators worldwide are closely monitoring the outcome of the case, as the ruling will directly impact Apple's revenue-sharing policies in other international markets.
Epic Games remains relentless in its pursuit of maintaining the status quo to gain space.
In an effort to demonstrate goodwill and secure a stay order from the Supreme Court, Apple pledged to maintain its current "zero commission" policy on external purchases during the review process, emphasizing that this would not cause immediate harm to Epic Games or other developers.
However, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney immediately seized on the incriminating evidence in Apple's filings. He publicly responded by pointing out that even Apple itself admitted in legal documents that regulatory agencies around the world were closely monitoring the case as a "precedent" for setting future commission rates.
Analysis of viewpoints
The shift from courtroom battles to an emergency motion in the Supreme Court shows that Apple has recognized the most deadly threat in the lawsuit: the court's attempt to mathematically define what constitutes a "reasonable" Apple tax.
Previously, Apple's 30% or 15% commission rate was a unilaterally set business rule, leaving developers with no choice but to accept or leave. However, if the Ninth Circuit Court's order takes effect, allowing district courts to audit Apple's internal financial statements and for judges to determine an objective "reasonable commission rate" (such as 10% or 15%), Apple's global pricing power will instantly crumble.
As Apple itself feared, the EU's Digital Markets Act, and regions like Japan and the UK, which are preparing to take strong antitrust action against Apple, will undoubtedly adopt this "reasonable rate" certified by the US courts immediately. Therefore, the application to the Supreme Court for a stay is not merely to save a few cents in the Epic Games lawsuit, but rather the ultimate defensive measure that Apple must take to protect its service revenue model, which generates hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
If the Supreme Court refuses to intervene, the golden age of profits for the App Store may truly be coming to an end.
